Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Specified Or Designated Operations Endorsement – Limitation of Insurance Coverage

July 15, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Your commercial general liability (CGL) policy may contain a specified or designated operations endorsement. This does not operate as an exclusion but as a LIMITATION of coverage. The endorsement may provide that bodily injury or property damage ONLY applies to the operations or business described therein. Similarly, there may be a limitation of coverage for designated classifications or codes which has the same effect—limiting coverage to the classifications/codes listed therein. This is an important consideration, and you need to understand and watch out for such limitations of coverage. (These aren’t the only ones, but it’s important to appreciate that limitations of coverage operate to limit the coverage to which the CGL policy applies.) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal dealt with this exact issue under Alabama law (although the same analysis would apply in numerous jurisdictions). In this case, a landscaper (the insured) had a CGL policy with a specified operations endorsement that limited coverage to landscaping operations. The landscaper was hired to install an in-ground trampoline in addition to site and landscaping operations at a house. A person got hurt using the trampoline and the landscaper was sued. The CGL insurer denied coverage outright (and, thus, any duty to defend) because the complaint asserted that the injury occurred from the landscaper’s assembly and installation of the trampoline, which was not a landscaping operation. Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the landscaper’s insurance application specified that the landscaper did not perform any recreational or playground equipment erection or construction, and the installation and assembly of a trampoline would constitute recreational or playground equipment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Federal Regulatory Recap: A Summary of Recent Rulemaking Actions Taken or Proposed Affecting the Energy Industry

December 16, 2023 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
It is clear that these have been busy months for federal environmental regulators, especially those working at EPA, the federal departments and the Council on Environmental Quality. Even the Department of Agriculture has found itself coping with greenhouse gases (GHG) issues in its administration of the laws applicable to agriculture and the national forests. The ambitious scope of the current “all of government” approach may be discerned after learning how many disparate federal agencies are employed in implementing this policy. So many actions have been proposed or completed that some state officials are experiencing “comment fatigue” because they are being overwhelmed by the scope, size, and complexity of these federal initiatives. The Environmental Protection Agency is, of course, at the forefront of these actions and activities, as described below. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

October 04, 2021 — Jatin Patel - Newmeyer Dillion
It has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty to defend. Recently, a Federal District Court issued a reminder to a wayward insurer. In Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc., v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021, No. C 20-07376 WHA, 2021 WL 4221747 (“Pacific”)), the Court was asked to assess whether a tender of defense by a concrete masonry subcontractor to its insurer for a construction defect action required a defense. Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc. (“PBM”) installed concrete masonry units (also known as “CMUs”) at a new retail shopping center in Oakland, California. The subsequent owner of the retail center filed suit against the general contractor for alleged construction defects, including “efflorescence of roof deck at CMU wall” and “improper waterproofing and flashing of the CMU block wall." The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against PBM. PBM tendered the defense of the case to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) along with copies of a preliminary defect list, a description of defects, interrogatory responses and an expert witness damage analysis. Navigators denied coverage and a duty to defend citing to the work product exclusion of the policy. PBM asked Navigators to reconsider. Navigators held firm on its denial. Two years later, PBM filed suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jatin Patel, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Patel may be contacted at jatin.patel@ndlf.com

Experts Weigh In on Bilingual Best Practices for Jobsites

February 22, 2018 — Jim Parsons – ENR
It’s the rare construction firm that doesn’t cite people as its most important resource. And over the past two decades, that asset has become increasingly bilingual. Indeed, more than 27% of workers in construction are Hispanic or of Latino ethnicity, according to the most recent available data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record

No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claims Against Contractor

March 19, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The U. S. District Court found there was no coverage for breach of contract claims against the contractor who walked off the job before completing the project. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Snider, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16920 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 11, 2014). The homeowners hired Jeff Beale to build their home for an approximate cost of $650,000. Beale said the job would take six to eight months and construction would be completed in early 2005. Construction did not begin, however, until April 2005. By 2005, the homeowners were becoming increasing displeased with Beale's progress. By March 2006, construction costs were approaching $800,000 and the home was not completed. The homeowners made progress payments on a monthly basis. Beale did not return to the home after April 2006 and another contractor was hired to complete the job. When the homeowners moved in, they discovered several construction defects, including a cracked retaining wall and water intrusion in many areas of the home. They paid over $150,000 to repair the defects, to complete work Beale left unfinished, and remove mold. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Construction Law Alert: Concrete Supplier Botches Concrete Mix, Gets Thrashed By Court of Appeal for Trying to Blame Third Party

January 21, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On January 8, 2015, the Second Appellate district affirmed judgment of the lower court in State Ready Mix Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol, and barred a concrete supplier from blaming a third party consultant for the concrete supplier's failure to deliver concrete that met project specifications. In 2012, Major Engineering Marine, Inc. was hired by a project manager to construct a harbor pier in the Channel Islands Harbor. Major hired State Ready Mix, Inc. to supply the concrete for the project. State wrote and submitted a concrete mix design and, at the request of Major, civil engineer Moffatt & Nichol reviewed and approved State's mix design at no charge. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

September 23, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to dismiss claims for improper claims handling when considering implementation of depreciation was denied. Morrison v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co, et al., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115664 (S. D. W. Va. July 1, 2024). Plaintiff's home suffered flood damage. The house was insured by Indian Harbor a surplus lines carrier that offered specialized and high risk property policies in West Virginia. Surplus lines policies were procured in West Virginia through a "surplus lines licensee." Here, Neptune Flood Inc. was the surplus lines licensee broker for Indian Harbor. Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc. was an administrator and loss adjuster involved in the claim. After the flood, Plaintiff notified defendants of the damage and immediately cleaned and repaired the house. Plaintiff asserted that Neptune was given notice of the loss and one of its agents made recommendations regarding the coverage available and conveyed the information to Peninsula and Indian Harbour. Plaintiff claimed that defendants misrepresented his policy coverage and made incorrect adjustments for depreciation based on Neptune's statements and recommendations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

No Jail Time for Disbarred Construction Defect Lawyer

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The New Mexico Supreme Court decided that a lawyer who defrauded clients will not be spending any time in jail, although they did disbar him in February. Bradley R. Sims brought a cashier’s check for $10,000 to repay his former client. Casa Bandera had hired Sims to sue over construction defects at apartment buildings it owned in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The court had found that Sims did not file the lawsuit but that created documents to convince his clients that he had. Sims initially intended to repay Casa Bandera through monies owed him by Sundland Park, New Mexico. When that did not arrive at the court, Sims borrowed the money. He has yet to comply with a court order to turn over his client lists so that the disciplinary board can determine if he owes money to any other clients. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES